Constitutional Confusion (an unfiltered opinion)

This year, New York voters will decide on an automatic ballot measure asking whether a convention should be held "to revise the state constitution and amend the same." The question, provided for by Section 2 of Article XIX of the constitution, provides for this referendum every twenty years. The last convention called by this measure took place in 1938, yielding a variety of reforms. In 1965, although the ballot question was not up for automatic offering, public outcry for constitutional reforms spurred the state legislature to place the same on that year's ballot. The subsequent convention, held in 1967, represents the last time a state constitutional convention has been held (though the proposed changes were rejected by voter referendum).

I had hoped to draft this article merely to provide information without revealing my personal views on the subject. However, my opinion is itself influenced by considerations from both sides, which I hope will help others make an informed decision, whatever that may be.

I describe my position as a "soft 'yes'". As a student of law, policy, and regulation, it excites me that we have an opportunity to participate more directly in our democracy by electing delegates to convene and discuss possible changes to our state's governing document. And yet, for months now ago, the campaign for a "No" vote has enjoyed a strong public presence on social media and car magnets.

What bothers me about the "No" campaign is its use of misinformation and fear-mongering. For example:

• A circulating Facebook post propagated an unsubstantiated rumor that questions left blank would be counted as a "Yes" vote. This. Is. Not. True. First of all, the constitutional provision states that a convention be called "in case a majority of the electors voting thereon shall decide in favor of a convention". That is to say that a majority of voters must affirmatively vote yes to effect a convention. Furthermore, in no election in our democracy would a blank ballot count as a vote in favor of anything. 
• A lot of materials throw around $350 million as the cost of a convention. However, this has been debunked as resulting from an error which inflated the cost of the 1967 twice over. The true cost is thought to be more like $47 million; not peanuts, for sure, but an infinitesimally small percentage (0.02%) of the state's $163 billion budget for fiscal year 2018. 
• Public employee unions have placed an undue focus on pensions. This is not without some basis in reality; research has revealed that a majority of New Yorkers favor a shift away from the current level of government (i.e. taxpayer) support for certain pension reforms. 
• As the above-linked pension-issue article explains, unions’ opposition to the convention "has been grossly misleading. As with any politically sophisticated special interest group pursuing an unpopular agenda, the unions have tried to exercise their influence in the shadows while framing their opposition in terms of popular causes and groups." It's ironic that the "No" campaign assails an amorphous cohort of "special interests" as an invisible hand with nefarious influence over a potential convention. First of all, "special interest" is defined as "a group of people or an organization seeking or receiving special advantages, typically through political lobbying." Hence, the union-backed "No" effort is itself a "special interest". Further, if the objection is financial, the "No" campaign has spent just as much - if not more - on its efforts surrounding the convention question. Some uncertainty exists because the "No" campaign derives support from groups who are not required to report such expenditures to the state Board of Elections.  Thus, the accusation of devious political activities by the pro-convention side rings incredibly hollow. 
• Similarly, certain "No" campaign materials gloss over the details of the referendum procedure to depict a possible convention as a sketchy backroom reimagining of the constitution by which "they" completely screw "us" over. Think about this, though: I've seen A LOT of "No" bumper stickers. If, somehow, a strong "Yes" vote comes out of the woodwork and a convention is called, opponents will clearly have a strong and unified voice with which to elect delegates and oppose any proposed amendments harmful to their interests. Indeed, people seem to ignore the fact that any proposed amendments will be voted on as ballot referenda on Election Day 2019. A simple diagram illustrates the process:

Despite the availability of neutral materials explaining the convention procedure, the oversaturation of fear-mongering antagonistic literature has left a wake of distrust and confusion amongst the public. Some opponents have expressed trepidation about the delegates who'll convene in Albany in 2019. "I don't know anything about the delegates! And they could potentially strip us of our rights!" This uncertainty is a necessary part of our reality, since candidates won't register and begin campaigns unless and until a majority of New Yorkers vote "Yes". Other skeptics understand this dilemma, but lament that the candidates for convention delegate will emerge from the same party-run machines that have yielded our current situation as one of the most corrupt, divisive, and ineffectively governed states in the country.

The refrain of "same flawed process, different mechanism" rings true, to a degree. Nonetheless, how can we expect things to change if we don't take advantage of different opportunities for change? Holding a convention would afford us an opportunity to fix a number of problems in our state, including:

• reforms to streamline the court system, eliminating inefficiencies that are estimated to cost the state $502 million per year; 
• enumerate rights not currently in the state constitution despite their guarantee by the federal Supreme Court; 
• remove constitutional provisions that are redundant or unnecessary; and
• enact voting reforms, such as allowing for same-day registration and other measures to increase voter participation. 

The whole enterprise involves a certain leap of faith: faith that if we vote to hold a convention, we will elect competent delegates who draft proposed amendments in the public interest. Then, if all else fails, the popular vote will prevent any nefarious proposals from being enacted. Because of this failsafe mechanism, I think the convention is a chance worth taking. People are very quick to criticize our state's elected leaders and the corruption that seems to pervade all levels of government. It's sad that a collective cynicism threatens to quash a once-in-a-generation opportunity to participate in government in a different way.

I'll concede, of course, that it would be wasteful if a convention took place, only to yield no viable amendments and therefore no tangible progress. This is why I'm a "soft 'yes'" ...instead of a "raging-liberal constitutional opportunist 'Yes'". As laid out about, the likely cost of the convention sounds like a lot of money, though it pales in comparison to our state's overall spending. Further, spread across our entire population, it translates to a handful of dollars per person. At the very most, we'd be out a few bucks. Without taking the leap, however, we lose the chance to reform our government in ways that can pay for themselves several times over.

Based on the sheer presence of the "No" campaign, I'm not holding my breath that a convention will be held. If it is, though, you can be sure to find further coverage of the process here.